[Closed] 80mph (speed limit to increase)

molgrips - Member
When it's busy, yes. When it's not, 80mph would be more appropriate.

A big part is being made of the economic argument though, which is the times when the roads are busy!

"[i]A big part is being made of the economic argument though, which is the times when the roads are busy![/i]"

Quite. I mean molgrips himself said "[i]what we need is everyone travelling at the same speed[/i]" and "[i]when it's busy, yes [traffic flows better when speeds are slower][/i]", and at congested times (ie when there's more economic impact not only because they're the times when more people are engaged on work-related journeys but also the simple mathematical point that that's when the number of people on the motorway is greatest so the gains have the maximum multiplier) that's best achieved by actually [i]lowering[/i] the speed limit.

[i]I also noticed that lane discipline is much better in Germany - overtake, then move into the inside lane[/i]

You've never driven around Frankfurt (or anywhere else), where they've more than two lanes...

IME Drivers across the world are pretty crap once there are more than two lanes.

For me, just get rid of the general speed limit on motorways, and then enforce 'posted' limits for urban/fog/rain/congestion.

This morning the outside lane of the M40 was up in the 90's.

If people can get to work 10 minutes quicker, they will stay in bed for an extra 10 minutes...

Basic human behaviour, which seems to have escaped the notice of the ringmasters of this particular circus. Plus, getting to your destination will involve driving on A roads and possibly other minor roads, which in turn will lead to higher speeds on those roads as people assume that they are going too slowly after their increased speeds on the motorway.

Classic political dimwitted knobbery, designed to appeal to the stupids of the world.

'Course, what they should do is raise the limit to 80, take the extra fuel duty revenue from that, stick a penny or two on a litre as well and add that to it, then plough all that cash into paying for more rolling stock on the railways and pulling fares back down to the point where it's no longer twice as expensive to commute by train as it is by car (oh the victimised motorist) and put a few more buses on, and then that would leave the roads a bit clearer for everyone to charge up and down having a gay old time at 80mph. Everyone's a winner, lovely jubbly.

Also, I would like peace on earth, Piers Morgan given 900 hours' community service as a lesson to others, and a Cadbury's Fruit and Nut tree in my garden.

[i]and a Cadbury's Fruit and Nut tree in my garden[/i]

I thought they were a root vegetable, hence the foil wrapping?

Foil wrapping?! You remember the 1980s too 🙂

I've got the effing song from the advert stuck in my head now.

Everyones a fruit and .... Yes, me too now... 🙂

It's bread and circuses molgrips, and you seem to be unable to see it.

I can see all sides of the argument perfectly well thanks, I'm just pointing out the ones that some people here are overlooking.

You are right though - the economic argument is absolute crap.

My argument (if you read back) is that you should make a trade. Increase the limit and then MAKE SURE people stick to it. So we end up with predominantly 80mph traffic and no 85/90/100ers messing it up. However you've always got lorries, caravans and those who choose to drive at 65/70/75 anyway...

Plus, getting to your destination will involve driving on A roads and possibly other minor roads, which in turn will lead to higher speeds on those roads as people assume that they are going too slowly after their increased speeds on the motorway

My experience in Germany seems to back that up. Speed is hellish addictive, and many people's driving seemed to back that up.

So, no economic argument, no environmental argument, we seem to be back to the Jeremy Clarksonesque populist nonsense reasoning then?

Bread and circuses.

I can't afford to drive at 70, let alone 80. Spend most of my time on the motorway sat behind a big truck at 56mph. Much cheaper.

How many people check their tyres daily? Weekly? Ditto bulbs. Then there's the complete disregard for safety and commons sense by not keeping the 2 second gap (as I mentioned earlier), or bothering to indicate, or overtaking on solid white lines of hashed junctions. And people want to allow these morons to drive faster?

And sadly, we're not talking about a minority of drivers, but the vast majority.

I am totally against it. Unless we have regularly medical/eye exams and stricter tests/penalties I really do think motorists are incompetent at high speeds. Just drive on any motorway and witness the jet pilots in the fastlane as well.

No way. 70 is nothing to ANY car. Its the operator of the machinery that's behind

if I'm in a hurry I drive at 86 purely becasue the last copper to give me 3 points for speeding on the motorway told me that was the cut off.

If you get over 50mph on the M25 you're really moving.

As for the economic argument, everybody is making the false assumption that most economic activity = most cars = rush hour. Rush hour is an irrelevance to economic activity - as identified by crikey up there (though I think he was trying to make a different point), the speed at rush hour has no effect on economic activity, just how long people get to spend in bed. Economic activity is affected by how long it takes people to travel whilst they're already at work - see my comments above about the speed you can travel during the working day between rush hours.

my journey times won't shorten because they're constrained by flow and congestion rather than top speed

Round here the traffic pretty much is always heavy when I'm on the road

My argument (if you read back) is that you should make a trade. Increase the limit and then MAKE SURE people stick to it.

I'm sure that driving at 80 will increase the revenue to the treasury through fuel duty, but probably not enough to employ people or the technology to enforce it.

As for the economic argument, everybody is making the false assumption that most economic activity = most cars = rush hour. Rush hour is an irrelevance to economic activity

Not if you are a HGV driver driving along the M25 at rush hour. Its a truck park 24-7. Rush hour. More like rush three hours.

I would argue against increasing the speed limit to 80 as there are already too many idiotic drivers out there already, but since there aren't too many police patrols enforcing the 70 limit, it won't make a difference.

A lot of idiotic driving is down to drivers who believe their car will protect them with all kinds of driver aids and safety devices.

As for enforcement, a couple of thousand pounds fine, points on the licence or impound and crush the car for anyone caught using a mobile phone while driving.

Not if you are a HGV driver driving along the M25 at rush hour.

As for the safety thing - just how many accidents take place on the motorway involving vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit - as opposed to say being an idiot under the speed limit, or driving too fast for the conditions when it's foggy?

Ah - the vehicles for whom changing the speed limit will make no difference. Useful data point.

Rush hour is an irrelevance to economic activity

Economic activity is affected by how long it takes people to travel whilst they're already at work

Which HGV drivers are. I wasn't in this instance pointing out how changing the speed limit would affect HGVs only that with everyone else on the road going to work and as a result not economically contributing, there are others that are, who are hindered by such activity.

As for the safety thing - just how many accidents take place on the motorway involving vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit - as opposed to say being an idiot under the speed limit, or driving too fast for the conditions when it's foggy?

I don't seem to remember saying that its just speed that causes accidents. I was commenting on whether the speed limit is 70 or 80, is not relevant if its not being properly enforced. Just like trying to enforce the ban on driving while using a phone is a bit pointless, because those that are caught are few and far between and you only get a small fine.

I can't afford to drive at 70, let alone 80. Spend most of my time on the motorway sat behind a big truck at 56mph. Much cheaper.

Until Spitfighter pilot comes down the slip road and is intent on getting onto the motorway asap and wipes you and your car out.

Behind a truck in 3rd lane is probably the most dangerous place to be for many many reasons.

Hmmmmmm,

80mph on the motorway

Bin collection back to once a week

Conservative Conference in a couple of days time.....

Until Spitfighter pilot comes down the slip road and is intent on getting onto the motorway asap and wipes you and your car out.

Behind a truck in 3rd lane is probably the most dangerous place to be for many many reasons.

yeah, other drivers being selfish twunts with no concept of right-of-way.

good point emsz!

i dont think the speed limit should be increased to 80, they should just enforce the 70 limit, maybe drop it to 60 🙂 i'd be happy with that. lots more average speed checks, they seem to stop the bunching up effect of all the idiots ragging it up to 80-90 just to hit the brakes again and cause the concertina effect that only further enrages bad drivers.

60 is too slow. Enforce at 80 but if you put it upto 80 then a small proportion of drivers will feel obliged to drive above their talent/concentration and hand/eye co-ordination level and feel 'edgy' and possibly panic.

Some people need saving from themselves.

Nothing will happen. Its just a headline grabbing consultation.

Quick summary for those who can't be bothered to read the whole thread:

A) On motorways where there is little traffic then 80mph will make little difference as people drive that fast or faster anyway

B) On motorways that are congested then 80mph will make little difference as people are stuck in traffic and travelling slower than that anyway

C) Most motorists (none of us obviously) need to drive better and this would make a bigger difference

D) Various other guff and opinions

Stopping distances will go up quite a bit - 490ft to 640ft IIRC. Given that most drivers can't seem to leave a big enough gap as it is, this concerns me more than any other aspect of the proposal.

🙂 some of us are perfectly happy driving at 80 safely, but chose to drive slower (and as a result at a much smoother and more consistent speed) to conserve fuel and money.

I have recently done a few 300 mile journey so to pass the boredom i thought i would try different speeds to see what happened to the economy.

Cruise control at 70mph = 27.4 mpg
Cruise control at 100mph = 25.5 mpg

Averages over motorway section of journey alloing for speeding up and slowing down to take account of traffic / cops etc

70mph = 27.1 mpg
100mph = 24.9 mpg

It looks like most of the mpg's escaped when speeding up to cruising speed and as 100mph is faster than 70mph it used more of them to get there.

I think this backs up what phil says about driving more steadily saves fuel.

Journey times were about 1 hour difference and consumption about 1 gallon difference.

Is arriving home 1 hour earlier worth £7?

🙂

ever since i started driving i've always cleared the trip counter when i fill up, means i can keep an eye on how much it costs me per mile. it also means that i can do my own little tests, drive at 56-60mph = 10p or less a mile, drive at 70 and all the accelerating and braking that comes with it = 15p a mile, drive like a dick = 20p+ a mile, more risks, more frustration at slower cars, only get home 2 minutes faster.

I strongly suggest none of you ever drive in NZ - you might have an eppy. Worst drivers in the world.

Cruise control at 70mph = 27.4 mpg
Cruise control at 100mph = 25.5 mpg

That's your big Merc isn't it? As above, the difference is less in big petrol cars.

In my diesel Passat, it's more like this:

70mph = 53mpg
80mph = 48mpg
100mph = 40mpg

i never normally bother. i just sit in the middle lane randomly speeding up and slowing down. Occasionally I swerve or brake heavily for no good reason. Sometimes I wave my hands around and shout at my phone while drifting across all three lanes and changing speed erratically. If it is raining I put my rear fog light on and either try to hook my front bumper onto the rear bumper of the car in front or drive REALLY slowly and try and block other drivers who want to pass as I know best what speed everyone should travel at.

Oh, hang on. That is the other drivers. i am faultless 😉

Actually, thinking about it, 80mph will be pretty good for me. I'll be able to use 6th gear in the Ducati.... Dukes are known to be a bit high geared and to be honest 6th isn't much good until you get to 70. It's a right pain in the arse keeping the damned thing below 80 on the motorways, I can tell you.

ever since i started driving i've always cleared the trip counter when i fill up, means i can keep an eye on how much it costs me per mile. it also means that i can do my own little tests, drive at 56-60mph = 10p or less a mile, drive at 70 and all the accelerating and braking that comes with it = 15p a mile, drive like a dick = 20p+ a mile, more risks, more frustration at slower cars, only get home 2 minutes faster.

Ahhhh! A fellow fuel geek in the making!

I shall have words with you tomorrow young man! 😉

*puts up his dukes*

[img] [/img]

mrspoddy coming along too? 😀

Is arriving home 1 hour earlier worth £7?

Journey times were about 1 hour difference and consumption about 1 gallon difference.

Is arriving home 1 hour earlier worth £7?

That is the key to the economic argument. If Hammond believes getting somewhere quicker will save companies money he must have done some sums (ha!). Let's try it out...

Assuming every other part of a journey (getting to and from motorway) stays the same, someone travels 100 miles on the motorway, and they can average the limit what would the saving be?

100 miles @ 70mph = 1 hr 24 mins
100 miles @ 80mph = 1 hr 15 mins

That's a saving of 9 minutes. If someone's productivity stays the same after these journeys, and they are paid the average wage (latest figures i can find are £446 a week/38 hours = £11.73), the saving for a firm is about £1.75 per journey of 100 miles.

If you multiply that by the number of journeys people make you probably could get £millions of savings... but how much extra does it cost to drive 100 miles @ 10mph more?

I don't think car journeys really work that way. They'll either say 'you need to be at X by Y' and you set off in good time, in which case the 9 minutes won't make any difference, or they will say 'call me when you get there' so you will have a relaxing trip and stop for coffee etc, so you'll just be silghtly more relaxed and take slightly longer over your coffee.

"Increasing the motorway speed limit to 80mph would generate economic benefits of hundreds of millions of pounds through [s]shorter journey times[/s] [b]vastly increasing the amount of duty we get from fuel[/b]."

FTFThem

Anyone think this may be part of the reason they are considering this?
A 20% increase in fuel consumption would certainly put a few extra pennies into the govt coffers.

Described in the guardian today as "fuel, fumes & funerals".

Greenest government ever? Don't make me laugh.

molgrips - Member
I don't think car journeys really work that way. They'll either say 'you need to be at X by Y' and you set off in good time, in which case the 9 minutes won't make any difference, or they will say 'call me when you get there' so you will have a relaxing trip and stop for coffee etc, so you'll just be silghtly more relaxed and take slightly longer over your coffee.

Like i said, lots of assumptions.

This would bring us clsoer to the rest of europe. I think we would be better off with varable limits (stricktly enforced as it seems people can't do that for them selves) upto 80mph and this would vary depending on the road conditions (traffic, rain, ice etc)
On short journeys it doesn't make a lot of difference but if you are doing more like 600 miles plus then it can make a difference to be allowed to go a bit faster. The lorries in france, germany etc are restricted to the same speed 80kph/56mph and there arn't any more accidents becuase the cars can do 130kph/80(ish)mph. We need better lane disapline over hear and to get away from the slow lane is for lorries mentality. Its called the nearside or inside lane and is ment for everyone. they currently use signs to remind people to pull in and its about time they started to prosicute them for it as it is a driving offense.

Meanwhile, in other news...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/274216/EU-plans-a-18-mph-speed-limit-and-wants-to-meddle-with-the-Highway-Code

its about time they started to prosicute them for it as it is a driving offense.

It is?

"You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. Slow-moving or speed-restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking."
-- [url= http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069862 ]Highway Code rule 264[/url]

No MUST NOT in there, just a [i]"should"[/i] and some woolly qualifiers (i.e. how far ahead should be clear?)

mrspoddy coming along too?

I think so yes. Weather looks BRILLIANT!!

excellent 😀